Distinction XIX

GRATIAN. Part I. Concerning decretal epistles, however, it is asked whether they possess the force of authority, since they are not found in the body of the canons. Pope Nicholas writes thus concerning them to the archbishops and bishops established throughout Gaul:

If by the decree of the Roman pontiffs the works of other expositors are approved or disapproved, so that what the apostolic see truly approved is held accepted today and what it rejected is held ineffective to this day, how much more ought the things that it itself wrote at diverse times for the Catholic faith, for sound doctrines, for the various and manifold necessities of the Church, and for the morals of the faithful to be preferred with every honor and to be reverently taken up by absolutely everyone in any appropriate circumstances, with discretion or dispensation as guide? Although some of you have written that those decretals of the ancient pontiffs are not written down in the whole body of the codex of canons, and therefore are not to be taken up among the canons, they themselves use them indiscriminately where they perceive them to support their intention, and only now declare that they have been accepted to a lesser degree for the diminution of the power of the apostolic see and as an argument for their own privileges. Likewise: §1. If they say that the decretal epistles of the ancient Roman pontiffs are not to be admitted because they are not found written in the codex of canons, then neither is any institution or writing of Saint Gregory, or of anyone else who was before him or is after him, to be received, because it is not found written in the codex of canons. Then let them erase from their books the teaching and sanctions of those men, which are venerated by every tongue, because they are not found written in the codex of canons. For what purpose do they occupy parchments after they are no longer held accepted? But why should we linger long, since we shall no longer receive even the divine Scriptures themselves of the Old and New Testament if we say that those men are to be heard? For neither of these is found inserted in the codex of ecclesiastical canons. But those who are prepared to resist rather than to obey will reply, saying that among the canons there is found a chapter of Saint Pope Innocent, by whose authority it is taught that both Testaments are to be received by us, although neither of them is contained as a whole within those paternal canons. To them it must be asserted in response that if the Old and New Testaments are to be received, not because they are annexed as a whole to the codex of canons, but because a judgment of Saint Pope Innocent appears to have been delivered concerning their reception, it assuredly remains that the decretal epistles of the Roman pontiffs are to be received even if they are not joined to the codex of canons, since it is established that among those canons a single chapter of blessed Leo is intermingled, by which all decretal enactments of the apostolic see are commanded to be observed in such a way that, if anyone transgresses against them, he is to know that pardon is denied him. [PALEA. For he says in c. 10 of his decretals: “But lest there perhaps be anything that is believed to have been passed over by us, we command that all decretal enactments, both of Innocent of blessed memory and of all our predecessors, which were promulgated concerning ecclesiastical orders and the disciplines of the canons, be observed by your charity in such a way that, if anyone transgresses against them, he is to know that pardon is thereafter denied him.”]

But by saying “all decretal enactments,” he omitted none of the decretal enactments that he did not command to be observed. And again, by asserting “of all our predecessors,” he excepted none of the Roman pontiffs who were before him, whose decretal enactments he did not command to be observed by all in such a way that, if anyone transgresses against them, he is to know that pardon is thereafter denied him. Thus it makes no difference whether all the decretal enactments of the apostolic see have or have not been intermingled among the canons of the councils, since all cannot be joined together in one body, and among them are those that assign firmness and their own force to those that are absent, especially since the synodal acts among which the canons themselves were established are not found in the codex of canons but are venerated by us with all due reverence. Moreover, Saint Gelasius, most eloquent in his decrees and most blessed pope, agrees with this most blessed Pope Leo, saying thus: “We decree that the decretal epistles that the most blessed popes gave at diverse times from the city of Rome in response to the consultation of diverse fathers are to be reverently received.” In this it is to be noted that he did not say, “The decretal epistles that are found among the canons,” or only, “that the modern pontiffs issued,” but “that the most blessed popes gave at diverse times from the city of Rome.” Moreover, in saying “at diverse times,” the holy man comprehended even those times when the persecutions of the pagans were multiplying and only with the greatest difficulty permitted the causes of bishops to be carried to the apostolic see. The divine grace favoring us, by setting forth these things in this way we show that there is no difference between those decrees of the prelates of the apostolic see that are found in the body of the canons and those that, because of their multitude, are scarcely found throughout individual bodies of volumes; for we have proved that the eminent prelates—namely Leo and Gelasius—commanded that all decretal enactments of all their predecessors, and the decretal epistles that the most blessed popes gave at diverse times from the city of Rome, were to be reverently received and observed.

Likewise Pope Agatho to all bishops. All the sanctions of the apostolic see are to be accepted just as though they had been confirmed by the divine voice of Peter himself.

Likewise from a capitulary of Emperor Charles. In memory of blessed Peter the Apostle, let us honor the holy Roman and apostolic see, so that, as it is for us the mother of priestly dignity, it ought to be the ecclesiastical teacher of reason. Therefore humility is to be maintained with gentleness; and although a yoke scarcely bearable is imposed by that holy see, nevertheless let us bear it and endure it with pious devotion. §1. But if—which is not fitting—anyone, whether he is a priest or a deacon, is accused, while contriving some disturbance and lying in wait for our ministry, of having brought a false epistle from the apostolic see, or something else that did not come from there, with faith preserved and humility toward the Apostolic intact, let it be in the bishop’s power whether to cast him into prison or into another custody until he appeals to the apostolic sublimity by a letter or through suitable legates of his own party, so that it may deign to decide especially through its holy legation and to define what Roman law establishes concerning such persons, in order that this man may be corrected and a limit imposed upon others.

Likewise Stephen V says. Indeed, because the holy Roman Church, over which Christ willed us to preside, has been placed as a mirror and example, whatever it establishes, whatever it ordains, is to be observed perpetually and irrefragably by all.

Likewise Gregory [IV]. It is lawful for no one either to will or to be able to transgress the precepts of the apostolic see, nor the ministry of our disposition, which your charity ought to follow. Part II. §1. Therefore, let whoever has willed to oppose apostolic decrees be laid low by the grief of his own ruin; nor let him thereafter have a place among the priests, but let him be banished from the holy ministry. Let no one afterward have concern for his judgment, since it is not doubted by anyone that he has already been condemned by the holy and apostolic Church through his disobedience and presumption; for he to whom the discipline of the holy Church has been entrusted, who ought not only to have obeyed the commands of the holy Church placed over him but also to have made them known to others lest they pass them by, is to be cast down by the overthrow of the greater excommunication. And let one who was unwilling to obey apostolic precepts be excluded from divine and pontifical offices.

Likewise Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II [c. 8]. Among the canonical Scriptures, the most diligent investigator of the divine Scriptures is to follow as much as possible the authority of the Catholic churches; among these indeed let there be those epistles that the apostolic sees possess and have merited to receive from it. §1. He will therefore maintain this measure in the canonical Scriptures: he is to place those that are received by all churches before those that some do not accept. But among those that are not accepted by all, he is to place those that the more numerous and weightier churches accept before those that the fewer churches of lesser authority hold. §2. But if he finds that some are held by more churches and others by weightier churches—although this cannot be found—I nevertheless think that they are to be held of equal authority.

Likewise Leo [Pope Leo I to the bishops of Vienne, epistle LXXXVII]. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, instituted it thus: that the truth, which previously was contained in the proclamation of the law and the prophets, should go forth through the apostolic trumpet for the salvation of the whole world, as it is written: “Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” But the Lord willed the sacrament of this office to pertain to the office of all the Apostles in such a way that he placed it principally in most blessed Peter, the chief of all the Apostles, so that from him, as from a certain head, his gifts might be diffused as into the whole body, and so that whoever had dared to withdraw from the solidity of Peter might understand himself to be banished from the divine mystery. For he willed that this man, assumed into the fellowship of indivisible unity, should be called what he himself was, saying: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church,” so that the building of the eternal temple might, by the marvelous gift of God’s grace, stand upon the solidity of Peter, strengthening his Church with this firmness so that neither human rashness could assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it. But whoever attempts to break his power, by favoring his own desires and by not following what he received from the ancients, wills with exceedingly impious presumption to violate this most sacred firmness of that rock, built by the Lord, as we have said. GRATIAN. This, however, is to be understood concerning those sanctions or decretal epistles in which nothing is found contrary either to the decrees of the preceding fathers or to evangelical precepts. For Anastasius II, through favor toward Emperor Anastasius, decreed that those whom Acacius had ordained priests or Levites after the sentence pronounced against himself ought duly to perform the offices they had received, saying thus:

[Anastasius II to Anastasius Augustus, epistle I, cc. 7 and 8.] According to the custom of the Catholic Church, let the most sacred heart of your serenity acknowledge that no share of injury from the name of Acacius touches any of those whom Acacius baptized, or whom he ordained as priests or Levites according to the canons, lest perhaps the grace of the sacrament handed down through an unrighteous man appear less firm. §1. For even if baptism—which God keep far from the Church—has been given either by an adulterer or by a thief, the gift reaches the recipient undefiled, because that voice which sounded through the dove excludes every stain of human pollution. This is declared when it is said: “This is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit and fire.” For if the rays of this visible sun, when they pass through the foulest places, are stained by no defilement from contact, much more is the power of him who made this visible sun constrained by no unworthiness of a minister. For although Judas was sacrilegious and a thief, whatever he did among the Apostles by virtue of the dignity entrusted to him—the benefits given through an unworthy man suffered no detriment from this, as the Lord himself declared with the clearest voice: “The scribes,” he says, “and the Pharisees sit upon the chair of Moses; do what they say, but do not do what they do, for they say and do not do.” §2. Therefore, whatever any ministers in the Church appear to perform for the advancement of men by virtue of their office, all this is accomplished by the effect of divinity. Thus Paul, through whom Christ speaks, affirms: “I planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore neither is he who plants anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” §3. Moreover, God does not ask who or of what sort the preacher is, but what he preaches, so that he confirms that even the envious preach Christ well; by this evil the devil himself was cast down, and yet he himself does not cease to preach this. Therefore this man also, whose name we say should be suppressed, by ministering good things badly harmed only himself. For the inviolable sacrament that was given to others through him obtained the perfection of its power. §4. This indeed is true generally, unless the curious suspicion of some should extend itself so far as to imagine that, after judgment was pronounced by Pope Felix, Acacius thereafter acted ineffectively in the sacraments that he usurped, and consequently that those who received the ministries handed down either in consecrations or in baptism ought to fear lest the benefits appear void. GRATIAN. Therefore, because he gave these rescripts illicitly and uncanonically, and contrary to the decrees of God, of his predecessors, and of his successors—as is proved by Felix and Gelasius, who excommunicated Acacius before Anastasius, and by Hormisdas, who, the third after Anastasius himself, afterward condemned the same Acacius—he is therefore rejected by the Roman Church and is read to have been struck by God in this manner:

Anastasius II, a Roman by nation, lived in the time of King Theodoric. At that time many clerics withdrew themselves from communion with him because, without a council of bishops or priests and clerics of the whole Catholic Church, he had communicated with a Thessalonian deacon named Photinus, who had communicated with Acacius; and because he secretly wished to recall Acacius and could not, he was struck by divine command. Hence also concerning Bishop Maximus it was established in the Synod of Constantinople [c. 6]:

Because of the teaching of all his indiscipline, which arose at Constantinople, it was established that Maximus should not be thought to have been or now to be a bishop, nor should those ordained by him hold any grade of the clerical state; all things, namely, that were done concerning him or by him having been rendered void.